[Pardon me] FPS…again

[Earlybite]

Hi,

normally, I like clouds as much know here, I fly with min. 20% clouds, fully shattered. With that I have in a TE inside the cockpit ~55 FPS. But with 5% clouds I have ~85 FPS! But…, just landed with 5% clouds at ~45 FPS.
Dear “Dev Sir´s”, that is *heavy…

[I-Hawk]

I don’t see a problem here, at landing it makes sense that your FPS will be lower than airborne, simply because you are at an AB and AB is a large feature with many many small objects in it, and if you land at one of the “heavier” (graphics wise) AB then you may see even a more serious drop.

Besides, 45 FPS is still smooth as silk, you aren’t able to see a difference anyway between 45 and 85 and 300 (and yes we had that discussion and I know some say that you can, but from gameplay POV, there is no difference, 0 :))

[Earlybite]

@I-Hawk:

I don’t see a problem here, at landing it makes sense that your FPS will be lower than airborne, simply because you are at an AB and AB is a large feature with many many small objects in it, and if you land at one of the “heavier” (graphics wise) AB then you may see even a more serious drop.

Besides, 45 FPS is still smooth as silk, you aren’t able to see a difference anyway between 45 and 85 and 300 (and yes we had that discussion and I know some say that you can, but from gameplay POV, there is no difference, 0 :))

Yes/sure[1], but ~40 FPS drop? Sir, pardon me, that *is heavy[2]…
[1] Smooth as silk
[2] If I fly with 20% clouds I fly inside the cockpit with ~55 FPS, but I do not land with ~15 FPS. 85 - 40 = 45, 55 - 40 = 15. I land with a little lower then 40 FPS (with 20% clouds)!
IMHO, who is flying with 35%, or even with 50% clouds[3]? No one? Why not setting clouds 5, 10, 15, 30, 50%. Or even 5, 8, 12, 17, 25, 35, 50%? Or, if to much parameters, 5, 10, 20, 40?
You can see my specs in the sig…
[3] Especially because of you need “space” in FPS because of the also heavy lost with TGP and/or WEAPON and/or TFR (or is it FLIR?)

[I-Hawk]

Don’t measure FPS drops this way, dropping from 85 to 45 is easier than dropping from 45 to 25.

Clouds are naturally heavy parts in the GFX engine, as clouds rendering requires blending to be active, the rendering comes with an overhead. I believe that’s true even in very modern games, usually you will not see explosions lasting for long times exactly because of that, all particle systems objects are rendered with blending enabled which has an overhead.

[Earlybite]

@I-Hawk:

Don’t measure FPS drops this way, dropping from 85 to 45 is easier than dropping from 45 to 25.

Clouds are naturally heavy parts in the GFX engine, as clouds rendering requires blending to be active, the rendering comes with an overhead. I believe that’s true even in very modern games, usually you will not see explosions lasting for long times exactly because of that, all particle systems objects are rendered with blending enabled which has an overhead.

Yes, yes, yes, but why not “pay the bill”? IMHO, within these circumstances it does not make sense to have such a high alignment for the clouds (5, 20, 35, 50). IMHO, to have a wider “layer” for *all (e.g.) 5, 10, 15, 20, 40%, or 5, 12, 20, 30, 40 makes more sense…

Regards
Earlybite

[Dee-Jay]

45FPS is playable, no problem, as long as you do not fall below 20, you do not need to try to reduce could density.

[jhook]

I have noticed (through reading and some missions flown) that FPS is dependent of the settings you have and the GFX card you are using. Some particle rendering will slow the frames quite a bit. Flying through smoke for example (previously discussed) will drop FPS significantly. My rig is pretty solid (although I am almost ready for another upgrade) and see little to GFX improvements with setting my GFX card to MAX AA and AF, ect. Try setting your GFX card to 4xAA and 8xAF for example (disable AF in game). Significant FPS improvement with little to no GFX loss in game is the result.

As for FPS at 45, no problems at all when flying. At the airbase, if the FPS (like DJ says) drops below 20, then you have stuttering and slow control for taxi. If this is happening, then my suggestions should help. A more advanced cloud/fog system may be coming to bms 1 day. The CPU clock speeds and the GFX card will get loaded up even more. Minimum to fly bms now is at lest a 2.5Ghz CPU and a GFX card that is no older than 6 years old to fly with any decent frames.

[Earlybite]

45, 45! That is not the issue! The issue is the *mass of drop! And the offer of small steps to highest settings (in case of the clouds)! Please, notice that. Why, again, not spending smaller steps, with lower settings?! That would be an improvement for the most of the pilots.
Another example:
I fly with 5% clouds and check FPS -> ~85 FPS. Wow! Maybe 2 minutes later -> ~65 FPS. And there has nothing really changed…same TE, same height, “same” clouds, etc…
Again:
4.33 needs a *big “sleeping” resort of FPS and in case of the clouds, it is, IMO, the better way to “pay the price” by offering smaller steps in lower settings (5, 10, 15, …%).
I want to compare the actually version of F4-BMS and its working with Just Cause-3…
Sure, I do not know, how the sim looks “from inside” (the code), but I’m really wondering, what has changed to “kill” the FPS in comparison with 4.32 (I’m not using High-Res-Tiles!)…
Howsoever and especially for the clouds:
I want suggest to offer smaller steps in lower settings…e.g. 5, 10, 15, 20, 40%.

Thanks
Greeting
Earlybite

[Dee-Jay]

@Earlybite:

45, 45! That is not the issue! The issue is the *mass of drop! And the offer of small steps to highest settings (in case of the clouds)! Please, notice that …

Do not worry, it has been noticed (since early 4.33 beta tests), and has been accepted for the release.

[Mav-jp]

@Earlybite:

45, 45! That is not the issue! The issue is the *mass of drop! And the offer of small steps to highest settings (in case of the clouds)! Please, notice that. Why, again, not spending smaller steps, with lower settings?! That would be an improvement for the most of the pilots.
Another example:
I fly with 5% clouds and check FPS -> ~85 FPS. Wow! Maybe 2 minutes later -> ~65 FPS. And there has nothing really changed…same TE, same height, “same” clouds, etc…
Again:
4.33 needs a *big “sleeping” resort of FPS and in case of the clouds, it is, IMO, the better way to “pay the price” by offering smaller steps in lower settings (5, 10, 15, …%).
I want to compare the actually version of F4-BMS and its working with Just Cause-3…
Sure, I do not know, how the sim looks “from inside” (the code), but I’m really wondering, what has changed to “kill” the FPS in comparison with 4.32 (I’m not using High-Res-Tiles!)…
Howsoever and especially for the clouds:
I want suggest to offer smaller steps in lower settings…e.g. 5, 10, 15, 20, 40%.

Thanks
Greeting
Earlybite

the difference with 4.32,?

easy

1. in 4.32 you dont have cloud setting in term of density so 4.32 is equivalent to 4.33 lowest cloud setting

2. beautiful korean, default tiles are fps eater

3. trees autogen are fps eater

4. environment mapping is fps eater

5. in poor / inclement weather you only had 1 layer of stratus in 4.32,and not stratus + cumulus layers that you have in 4.33

6. do you think 4.33 higher polys models are fps free ?

etc etc….

45 fps is very good for playing

[Earlybite]

@Mav-jp:

the difference with 4.32,?

easy

1. in 4.32 you dont have cloud setting in term of density so 4.32 is equivalent to 4.33 lowest cloud setting

2. beautiful korean, default tiles are fps eater

3. trees autogen are fps eater

4. environment mapping is fps eater

5. in poor / inclement weather you only had 1 layer of stratus in 4.32,and not stratus + cumulus layers that you have in 4.33

6. do you think 4.33 higher polys models are fps free ?

etc etc….

45 fps is very good for playing

Clouds are relative constant…
I wrote: I do not use HighRes-tiles…
Weather: Fair (nearly always in my case)
Trees, grass: Yes, but not the reason for a difference of ~45 FPS
Higher count of polies is constant

I’m not convinced, that these (your) points are the (only) reason for the heavy FPS up and down…

[Earlybite]

@Dee-Jay:

Do not worry, it has been noticed (since early 4.33 beta tests), and has been accepted for the release.

Really?! And who of this guys is using 50% clouds?

[Amraam]

Constant mean nothing. Is the number, not constant or not, it doesn’t play at all.
You should understand that you discover nothing here, but if you want to play with 50% of cloud coverage and high FPS, okay then, next time we will delayed the release 2 more years.

if you don’t like the FPS, just keep the cloud coverage at the minimum, like what we have with the 4.32, simple as that.

About the ground tiles, you mean that you have manually replace the tiles folder?? you’ll have issues as well.

[Arty]

Trees grass not the reason for the drop.
With all others yes is one of the affecting reasons.
Don’t just see it as one.

In the past the talk why when wheels are on the ground the fps drop that much was a looooooong one. Still don’t know the answer. Mav-jp said when weight on wheels is triggered many things start to calculate ATC paths for aircraft to taxi (routing of aircrafts to park or to take off). I don’t think such code (routing) is heavy but I have to accept it.
Soo when you put your wheels on the ground there is a reason why fps drop that much.
If it can get better? Probably it can but someone has to do it, and it ain’t me or you Earlybyte.
I was even on 19-15 on ground so what? Up in the air is the point.

[Earlybite]

@Amraam:

Constant mean nothing. Is the number, not constant or not, it doesn’t play at all.
You should understand that you discover nothing here, but if you want to play with 50% of cloud coverage and high FPS, okay then, next time we will delayed the release 2 more years.

if you don’t like the FPS, just keep the cloud coverage at the minimum, like what we have with the 4.32, simple as that.

About the ground tiles, you mean that you have manually replace the tiles folder?? you’ll have issues as well.

“but if you want to play with 50%”, YWHO wrote I want?! WHO! Learn reading, sir!
Oh, and I’m pretty sure that I “will not discover anything” <huh, boogeyman=“”>!
“Just keep at that clouds at minimum…”, and all is fine and all points of the OP are wiped away.
I will tell you now, what I’m thinking about your post: it’s bashing

Thanks…
And, BTW, I will pretty know where this thread ends!</huh,>

[Earlybite]

@Arty:

Trees grass not the reason for the drop.
With all others yes is one of the affecting reasons.
Don’t just see it as one.

In the past the talk why when wheels are on the ground the fps drop that much was a looooooong one. Still don’t know the answer. Mav-jp said when weight on wheels is triggered many things start to calculate ATC paths for aircraft to taxi (routing of aircrafts to park or to take off). I don’t think such code (routing) is heavy but I have to accept it.
Soo when you put your wheels on the ground there is a reason why fps drop that much.
If it can get better? Probably it can but someone has to do it, and it ain’t me or you Earlybyte.
I was even on 19-15 on ground so what? Up in the air is the point.

“So what…”, how magnanimous! <applause>One get an order to build new habitats in kind of a very high skyscraper and he forgets to implement the elevators and YOUR statement is “Let’s take stairs!”? In no living!

The differences in FPS (same computer, same flight, same (sim-)time) is too high, and there is no way around to accept this!</applause>

[Mav-jp]

@Earlybite:

“So what…”, how magnanimous! <applause>One get an order to build new habitats in kind of a very high skyscraper and he forgets to implement the elevators and YOUR statement is “Let’s take stairs!”? In no living!

The differences in FPS (same computer, same flight, same (sim-)time) is too high, and there is no way around to accept this!</applause>

So dont accept “this” and go back install 4.32 or AF

[Mav-jp]

@Earlybite:

“but if you want to play with 50%”, YWHO wrote I want?! WHO! Learn reading, sir!
Oh, and I’m pretty sure that I “will not discover anything” <huh, boogeyman=“”>!
“Just keep at that clouds at minimum…”, and all is fine and all points of the OP are wiped away.
I will tell you now, what I’m thinking about your post: it’s bashing

Thanks…
And, BTW, I will pretty know where this thread ends!</huh,>

you are close minded.

When i created the possibility to give the user the possiblity to add more clouds, i knew it would bring to knee most current configurations.

but as developper we also need to see a little more in the future else the Game becomes osbolete VERY quikcly and then people complain GFX not being 'up to date".

So yes, most config will have hard time to run clouds at max coverage, but in a few months that will be OK. And since the release time frame is around 3 to 4 years…the dev choice is the wiser.

So stop complaining , you are top ridiculous to complain at 45 fps which is already extremly good.

[Mav-jp]

@Earlybite:

“but if you want to play with 50%”, YWHO wrote I want?! WHO! Learn reading, sir!
Oh, and I’m pretty sure that I “will not discover anything” <huh, boogeyman=“”>!
“Just keep at that clouds at minimum…”, and all is fine and all points of the OP are wiped away.
I will tell you now, what I’m thinking about your post: it’s bashing

Thanks…
And, BTW, I will pretty know where this thread ends!</huh,>

Could you answer amraam"s question ? :

"have you replaced the tiles folder "?

what are your low rez tiles ?

[I-Hawk]

You cannot compare 4.32 to 4.33 as almost ANY graphics aspect (Code and data/art) was touched/improved. In fact 4.33 is MORE efficient than 4.32, but it has a much heavier burden to carry (e.g heavier tile set, much higher poly models and better textures) so you see a little lower FPS.

I still don’t understand your complains, you claim that 45 FPS are “bad” but you can’t explain why, just you say that it’s a drop from 85 “steady”, that isn’t a valid argument.